QUICK FACTS
Created Jan 0001
Status Verified Sarcastic
Type Existential Dread
Keywords
reichsgesetzblatt, wilhelm frick, nameplate, notary, advocate, schöneberg, berlin, german, nazi, germany

Law For The Restoration Of The Professional Civil Service

“The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service: A Bureaucratic Blueprint for...”

Contents
  • 1. Overview
  • 2. Etymology
  • 3. Cultural Impact

The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service: A Bureaucratic Blueprint for Exclusion

The promulgation of the law in the Reichsgesetzblatt Wilhelm Frick in his cell at Nuremberg, November 1945 Nameplate of Dr. Werner Liebenthal, Notary & Advocate . The plate was hung outside his office on Martin Luther Str, Schöneberg , Berlin . In 1933, following the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service the plate was painted black by the Nazis, who boycotted Jewish owned offices.

The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service (German : Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums, often shortened to Berufsbeamtengesetz), also known by less verbose titles such as the Civil Service Law, Civil Service Restoration Act, or simply the Law to Re-establish the Civil Service, was a legislative act swiftly brought into force by the nascent Nazi regime in Germany on 7 April 1933. This piece of legislation, a mere two months after Adolf Hitler ’s ascent to power and a scant two weeks following the ominous promulgation of the Enabling Act — which essentially granted Hitler dictatorial powers by allowing laws to be enacted without parliamentary consent — stands as one of the earliest and most chilling instances of state-sanctioned anti-Semitic and overtly racist legislation in Germany. It was not merely a legal document; it was a declaration of intent, a bureaucratic machete slicing through the fabric of German society.

The stated primary objective of this law was to establish what the regime cynically termed a “national” and “professional” civil service. In practice, this lofty ideal served as a thinly veiled pretext for the systematic dismissal of specific groups of tenured civil servants. Individuals designated as being of “non-Aryan ” origin, a category overwhelmingly targeting those of Jewish descent, were summarily compelled into early retirement. Concurrently, members of the Communist Party or individuals affiliated with organizations deemed sympathetic to communist ideologies were to be immediately terminated from their positions. The law’s reach was far from limited to mere government clerks; it systematically forbade Jews, other “non-Aryans,” and those identified as political opponents from holding vital positions across the public sector. This included roles as teachers , professors , judges , and various other governmental capacities. Its insidious tendrils also extended into other critical professions, such as lawyers , doctors , tax consultants , musicians, and notaries , effectively purging these fields of undesirable elements. Initially, the law’s draconian ambition sought the immediate dismissal of all non-Aryan civil servants, a clear indication of the regime’s ultimate goal. However, in a brief, politically expedient moment of moderation, subsequent amendments were introduced to exempt certain categories: specifically, World War I veterans who had served at the front, individuals who had been continuously employed in the civil service since 1 August 1914 (the very start of the Great War), and those who had suffered the profound loss of a father or son in combat during the war. These exemptions, while offering a temporary reprieve to a minority, were ultimately a fleeting concession.

This law represented a profoundly significant and devastating turning point for German Jewry . It marked the official beginning of the legal disenfranchisement and systematic persecution that would escalate dramatically in the years to come. For many prominent figures, the writing was on the wall. Notable intellectuals and public servants, such as the world-renowned physicist Albert Einstein , saw the storm gathering and chose to resign their positions and emigrate from Germany before they could be forcibly expelled, their foresight a stark contrast to the tragic optimism of others. Another crucial provision within the law aimed to remove personnel deemed “unreliable” due to their political beliefs, effectively providing a legal framework for purging anyone suspected of disloyalty to the Nazi ideology, regardless of their supposed “racial” background. The legislation also meticulously defined “Aryan” lineage and, more critically, established a stark and artificial distinction between “Aryans” and “non-Aryans” based on pseudo-scientific racial theories. It included specific provisions for compulsory retirement and, chillingly, the requirement for individuals to provide irrefutable evidence of their “Aryan” ancestry. To ensure its ruthless implementation and to introduce further, increasingly restrictive regulations, a series of related ordinances were swiftly issued in its wake, each one tightening the noose around the necks of those targeted by the regime.

Articles of the law

Article 1 of the Law, cloaked in the language of national renewal, audaciously claimed that in order to “re-establish” a “national” and “professional” civil service, members of certain designated groups of tenured civil servants were to be dismissed. This was a restoration in the same way that a demolition crew “restores” a building to its foundational elements. The primary targets were clear: civil servants who were deemed not to be of “Aryan” descent were to be retired. The definition of “non-Aryans” was deliberately broad and chillingly precise for its purpose: someone descended from non-Aryans, with a particular emphasis on those descended from Jewish parents or grandparents. It was a genetic condemnation. Furthermore, members of the Communist Party , or any related or associated organization, were to be summarily dismissed, regardless of their “racial” background. This meant that Jews, other “non-Aryans,” and political opponents — essentially anyone who didn’t fit the Nazi mold or posed a perceived threat to their monolithic control — were explicitly barred from serving as teachers , professors , judges , or occupying any other government positions. The purge was swift and comprehensive. Shortly after this foundational law, a similar, equally discriminatory piece of legislation was passed, extending its reach to professions such as lawyers , doctors , tax consultants , musicians, and notaries , ensuring that the regime’s ideological grip extended throughout public and professional life.

As the law was initially drafted by the Interior Minister, Wilhelm Frick , it was an even more brutal instrument: all those of “non-Aryan descent” were to be fired immediately from all levels of government — Reich, Länder (states), and municipal. However, at this early stage of the Nazi regime’s consolidation of power, the aged and still-respected President of Germany , Paul von Hindenburg , raised objections to the bill. Hindenburg, a celebrated World War I field marshal, was swayed, perhaps, by a lingering sense of duty to those who had served the nation in its previous conflict, or perhaps by a pragmatic understanding that such a sweeping dismissal could cause too much immediate disruption and resentment. His intervention led to crucial amendments, temporarily excluding three specific classes of civil servants from the immediate ban:

  • Firstly, World War I veterans who had demonstrably served at the front . This provision, known as the Frontkämpferprivileg or “front-line fighter privilege,” was a nod to nationalistic sentiment and a strategic move to avoid alienating a powerful and respected demographic.
  • Secondly, those who had been in the civil service continuously since 1 August 1914, which coincided with the very start of the Great War. This acknowledged long-standing service and loyalty to the state.
  • Thirdly, those who had tragically lost a father or son in combat during the Great War, a gesture to those who had paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Hitler, ever the pragmatist when faced with early political obstacles, agreed to these amendments, and the amended bill was signed into law on 7 April 1933. It’s worth noting that under the recently enacted Enabling Act of 1933 , neither the consent of the Reichstag nor the signature of the President of the Republic was technically required for the promulgation of law . Thus, Hindenburg’s intervention and the subsequent amendment were a matter of political expediency and a temporary deference to his stature, rather than a legal necessity. In practice, these amendments initially excluded a significant number of Jewish civil servants from immediate dismissal. However, this brief respite was short-lived; after Hindenburg’s death in 1934, these amendments were completely superseded and rendered irrelevant by the far more comprehensive and brutal Nuremberg Laws of 1935. Nonetheless, the initial passage of this law was a crucial and deeply unsettling turning point in the history of German Jewry , for it marked the first time since the last German Jews had been granted emancipation in 1871 (following the Unification of Germany ) that an explicitly anti-Semitic law had been officially passed in Germany. This wasn’t just a political shift; it was a fundamental betrayal of decades of civil rights. In one particularly notable and widely publicized example of the law’s immediate effect, Albert Einstein , a towering figure of intellectual achievement, resigned his prestigious position at the Prussian Academy of Sciences and emigrated to the United States, effectively pre-empting his inevitable expulsion.

Article 4 of the Law, with its chillingly vague wording, targeted “Civil servants who, after their previous political activities, cannot guarantee that they will always stand up for the national state without reservation.” This article had the explicit intention to remove all personnel that, because of their political views or any perceived lack of ideological fervor, could not be relied upon by the Party to execute its wishes. It was a blunt instrument for achieving Gleichschaltung, the Nazi process of forced coordination and ideological alignment across all aspects of society. This Article 4 affected all Germans irrespective of their “racial” origins, demonstrating the regime’s dual strategy of racial persecution and political suppression.

Content

Following the decree, the regime quickly faced the intellectual quagmire of defining “Aryan.” Albert Gorter, in a convoluted and ultimately unsatisfactory attempt, redefined the term in the context of the Aryan paragraph as:

The Aryans (also Indo-Germans, Japhetiten) are one of the three branches of the Caucasian (white race); they are divided into the western (European), that is the German, Roman, Greek, Slav, Lett, Celt [and] Albanesen, and the eastern (Asiatic) Aryans, that is the Indian (Hindu) and Iranian (Persian, Afghan, Armenian, Georgian, Kurd). Non-Aryans are therefore: 1. the members of two other races, namely the Mongolian (yellow) and the Negroid (black) races; 2. the members of the two other branches of the Caucasian race, namely the Semites (Jews, Arabs) and Hamites (Berbers). The Finns and the Hungarians belong to the Mongoloid race; but it is hardly the intention of the law to treat them as non-Aryans. Thus … the non-Jewish members of the European Volk are Aryans…

However, this labyrinthine definition, with its inclusion of various non-European races and its geographical complexities, was deemed unacceptable by the regime’s ideologues because it failed to precisely align with the narrow, exclusionary racial purity they envisioned. It was too broad, too scientifically inconsistent with their political agenda. Achim Gercke , a prominent Nazi racial theorist, subsequently redefined this problematic definition, aligning it with the one already employed by the Expert Advisor for Population and Racial Policy. This revised definition stated: “An Aryan is one who is tribally related to German blood. An Aryan is the descendant of a Volk domiciled in Europe in a closed tribal settlement since recorded history.” This new, more restrictive definition allowed the Civil Service Law to differentiate between ‘Aryans’ and ’non-Aryans’ with a clarity that served the regime’s genocidal aims. Yet, even this definition struggled with practical application, particularly concerning the precise “quantity of Jewish blood” an individual was allowed to possess before being considered detrimental to the “German Volk.” This seemingly absurd bureaucratic struggle over racial definitions highlights the deeply flawed and unscientific basis of Nazi racial policy, which was ultimately driven by ideology rather than any coherent scientific principle.

(The following is translated from the German version of this page.) Beyond racial considerations, the law also targeted political dissent. Political opponents of national socialism — categorized broadly as “Officials who, on account of their past political activities cannot guarantee that they have always acted wholeheartedly for the national state” — faced a grim choice: either be forced into premature retirement or be summarily dismissed from their jobs. This sweeping clause allowed the regime to cleanse public institutions of anyone suspected of harboring anti-Nazi sentiments.

Moreover, civil servants could be dismissed if they had commenced their employment after 1918 (the end of World War I) and were now unable to demonstrate that they had acquired all the necessary training and qualifications for their careers. These individuals, often appointed during the Weimar Republic era, were derisively labeled “membership book officials (Parteibuch-Beamte)” in the language of National Socialist propaganda, implying that their appointments were due to political affiliation rather than merit. This served to undermine the previous democratic government’s appointments and further solidify Nazi control.

According to § 3 (1) of the “First Ordinance for the accomplishment of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service,” the initial, critical definition of a “Jew” was formally established:

  • A person is to be considered non-Aryan if he is descended from non-Aryan, and especially from Jewish parents or grandparents. It is sufficient if one parent or grandparent is non-Aryan. This is to be assumed in particular where one parent or grandparent was of the Jewish religion.

Such individuals could be let go or prematurely forced into retirement, effectively ending their careers and often their livelihoods. However, according to § 3 (2), “non-Aryan” officials were temporarily allowed to retain their positions if they had occupied those positions since a date before August 1914, or if they had a son or father who had been killed in the First World War. This loophole also applied to “Frontkämpfer” (Front-line soldiers), as per the Frontkämpferprivileg . This temporary reprieve, however, came with a heavy price: all persons in the civil service would eventually have to produce the Ariernachweis (proof of Aryan ancestry) in order to definitively prove that they had no ancestors of the Jewish “race.” This precarious “loophole” was definitively and brutally closed by the 1935 Nuremberg Laws , which introduced far more stringent and comprehensive racial definitions. Consequently, any Jewish civil servants still clinging to their posts were given final notice by 31 December 1935 at the absolute latest, ending any remaining illusions of security.

Beyond racial and political purges, § 6 of the law granted the regime another broad power: civil servants could be forced into retirement without cause “for the simplification of administration.” This seemingly innocuous clause was a catch-all, allowing for the arbitrary dismissal of individuals for any reason, or no reason at all, under the guise of bureaucratic efficiency. A particularly cruel stipulation was that the vacant positions created by this action were not to be refilled, further diminishing the civil service and public institutions.

In rapid succession, numerous regulations were dispensed with, and countless employees and laborers in the civil service, as well as those within the Reichsbank (the German central bank), found themselves swept into the ever-widening net of dismissal and forced retirement.

The financial repercussions for those targeted were severe and long-lasting. Pensions were not guaranteed for all groups of people forced into the ranks of pensioners by this law. The already precarious guaranteed old-age pension was further reduced in 1938 by the “Siebente Verordnung zum Reichsbürgergesetz” (Seventh Ordinance to the Reich Citizenship Law), compounding the economic hardship faced by those already stripped of their careers and dignity.

On 1 September 1933, Minister Frick, ever vigilant in his pursuit of racial purity, issued the second supplementary decree of the law, making a further attempt to clarify and solidify the terms “Aryan” and “non-Aryan”:

  • In defining the concept of Aryan descent in accordance with section 3 of the Law for the Restoration of the Civil Service, it is not religion which is decisive, but rather descent, race, blood. It is in particular not only those of whom a parent or grandparent belonged to the Jewish religion who are non-Aryan …. Thus, the Law by no means excludes the possibility of non-Aryan descent, even if none of the parents or grandparents belonged to the Jewish religion, in the event that non-Aryan descent can be established by other means.

This decree explicitly stated that religious affiliation was secondary to “descent, race, blood,” highlighting the biological and immutable nature of the racial identity the Nazis sought to impose. It also broadened the scope of “non-Aryan” to include individuals who might not have had a Jewish parent or grandparent if “non-Aryan descent can be established by other means,” a chillingly vague phrase that gave immense power to racial pseudo-scientists and bureaucrats to interpret and condemn.

The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was not an isolated act but the first in a relentless cascade of legislative instruments designed to systematically dismantle the rights and lives of targeted groups. It was followed by a series of ordinances that further refined, extended, and solidified its discriminatory principles:

See also

Notes

  • ^ The Nazi Germany Sourcebook: An Anthology of Texts, ed Roderick Stackelberg, Sally A. Winkle, Routledge, 15 Apr 2013, Article 1 First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service
  • ^ The Nazi Germany Sourcebook: An Anthology of Texts, ed Roderick Stackelberg, Sally A. Winkle, Routledge, 2013, Article 3.12b First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service ISBN missing
  • ^ The Nazi Germany Sourcebook: An Anthology of Texts, ed Roderick Stackelberg, Sally A. Winkle, Routledge, 2013, Article 2 First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service
  • ^ See Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service for the exceptions.
  • ^ Under the Enabling Act of 1933 , neither the consent of the Reichstag nor the signature of the President of the Republic was any longer required for the promulgation of law . The amendment for Hindenburg was thus a matter of political expediency, not of legal necessity.
  • ^ a b c Ehrenreich 2007, p. 10.
  • ^ Ehrenreich 2007, p. 11.
  • ^ Leni Yahil, The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932–1945, p. 65 ISBN missing
  • ^ Although the Law defined a Jew as someone who had even just one Jewish grandparent as “non-Aryan”, the way the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 regarded such people, as “quarter-Jews (“Vierteljuden”).
  • ^ Bryan Mark Rigg, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military, p. 79 ISBN missing
  • ^ Hentschel, 1996, 25–26. Document #8.
  • ^ Hentschel, 1996, 34–36. Document #12.
  • ^ Hentschel, 1996, 46–49. Document #17.
  • ^ Hentschel, 1996, 96–97. Document #36.